S.Nagamuthu, J.—The defendants in O.S.No.581 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruvallur are the appellants. The plaintiffs in the suit are the respondents herein. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the suit property. The trial court, by decree and judgment dated 27.02.2013 dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S.No.14 of 2013 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur. By decree and judgment dated 11.02.2015, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the defendants are before this Court with this Second Appeal.

2. This Second Appeal has come up before me today for admission. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the records carefully.

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:

The suit property was originally owned by one Babu Naidu. Babu Naidu had mortgaged the suit property by means of an unregistered Mortgage Deed dated 18.10.1968. From the date of the said mortgage, the plaintiffs mother Kamalammal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Kamalammal executed a Settlement Deed dated 15.12.2003 in favour of the plaintiffs thereby settling the suit property in their favour. Thus, the plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have got no right whatsoever over the suit property. But, they tried to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the present suit was filed for permanent injunction.

4. In the written statement, the defendants contended that it is not true that the suit property was originally owned by Kamalammal. It is further stated that the Settlement Deed dated 15.12.2003 is a fabricated document and it would not convey any title to the plaintiffs, since the settler, namely, Kamalammal herself had no title to convey. It is further contended that the suit property was not in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. But after filing of the suit and after having obtained an interim injunction against the defendants, the plaintiffs trespassed into the suit property and put up a small hut and dispossessed the defendants. It is also the case of the defendants that the suit property was originally owned by Babu Naidu @ Sugunandra Babu Naidu, S/o.Narayanasamy Naidu. The 1stdefendant and Babu Naidu were close friends. On account of the said friendship, Babu Naidu had authorised the 1stdefendant to manage the suit property. Babu Naidu went on a pilgrimage in the year 1974 after entrusting the suit property to the 1defendant. Thus, from the year 1974 onwards, the 1defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Babu Naidu, who went on pilgrimage, had not turned at all. Thus, the 1stststdefendant was all along in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and after filing of the suit as stated above, the plaintiffs trespassed into the suit property. Thus, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any decree as prayed for.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed appropriate issues. In order to prove the case, on the side of the plaintiffs, 3 witnesses were examined and as many as 21 documents have been marked. The Settlement Deed dated 15.12.2003 executed by Kamalammal has been marked as Ex.A.1. Ex.A.2 to Ex.A4 are the House Tax Receipts for the hut situated on the suit property for the years 2002-2003. Ex.A.14 to Ex.A.18 are also the House Tax Receipts for the hut situated on the suit property for the years 2005 to 2009. On the side of the defendants, 3 witnesses were examined and one document, namely, Encumbrance Certificate dated 26.07.2004 was marked as Ex.